Managing cumulative impacts and protected areas in Antarctica: what can we learn from the rest of the world?

Abstract

For more than 20 years Antarctic Treaty Parties have been discussing how to appropriately manage cumulative impacts in the continent. Preventing cumulative impacts requires the fluent exchange of information to enable proper and timely assessment of, and response to, the impacts that result from multiple activities, undertaken by multiple stakeholders and supervised by different Parties. This is a particular challenge for the effective management of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), as a lack of coordination may potentially put at risk the fulfillment of their conservation objectives. Here we suggest that incorporating lessons learnt from protected areas management elsewhere might improve the effectiveness of ASPAs and provide valuable experiences and insights on how to better manage cumulative impacts in the rest of the continent. Key concepts to incorporate in Antarctica’s environmental management toolbox include (1) the notion of adaptive management, which is a cornerstone of protected areas management effectiveness elsewhere, and (2) the need of empowering protected area managers, which are a key (but often missing) element to ensure local compliance with management plans, co-ordinate on site activities, facilitate exchange of information, promote cooperation and manage conflicts.

Ant-ICON - ‘Integrated Science to Inform Antarctic and Southern Ocean Conservation’: a new SCAR Scientific Research Programme

“…aesthetic or wilderness), describing and anticipating the drivers of change in socio-ecological systems and clarifying the implications of political, economic and socio-cultural changes on current and future activities. The research also addresses questions that have been raised regarding the efficacy of environmental management across the region (Shaw et al 2014, Hughes et al 2016) and builds on lessons learnt in other parts of the world (Soutullo et al 2022). Key questions include:…”

“…aesthetic or wilderness), describing and anticipating the drivers of change in socio-ecological systems and clarifying the implications of political, economic and socio-cultural changes on current and future activities. The research also addresses questions that have been raised regarding the efficacy of environmental management across the region (Shaw et al 2014, Hughes et al 2016, Coetzee et al 2017) and builds on lessons learnt in other parts of the world (Soutullo et al 2022). Key questions include: Taking into consideration socio-ecological connectivity, what are the socio-political and economic impacts and consequences of environmental change in Antarctica? What are the characteristics and implications of responsible and ethical governance for Antarctica in the 21st century? What does socio-ecological resilience look like in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean? What are the potential implications of global social, health and economic shifts for Antarctic activities? …”